Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[1robin]

First of all, Jesus didn't choose to be sacrificed, he did it because his father wanted him to.

Secondly, the symbolism of the cannibalism WITHIN communion is what I am objecting to, I understand that in (some) interpretations it doesn't literally become the flesh and blood.

Well look whos back. In the protestant and common sense of the communion there is nor refernece to cannabalism. It is a reminder of the sacrifice that set us free. A transubstination interpretation is a very stupid idea based in tradition not the bible.

 

[jasonwill2]

Well look whos back. In the protestant and common sense of the communion there is nor refernece to cannabalism. It is a reminder of the sacrifice that set us free. A transubstination interpretation is a very stupid idea based in tradition not the bible.

Um actually there is, Jesus says himself in the Bible that "this is my flesh" and gives them bread, and says "this is my blood" and gives them wine, and says to do that every-time they eat as remembered of him.

I'm pretty sure that is using cannibalistic symbolism.

 

[sojourner]

First of all, Jesus didn't choose to be sacrificed, he did it because his father wanted him to.

Secondly, the symbolism of the cannibalism WITHIN communion is what I am objecting to, I understand that in (some) interpretations it doesn't literally become the flesh and blood.

First of all, Jesus did choose. He could have shut up and walked off. He could have recanted. God's will wasn't that Jesus die, it was that he finish his work, which required that he keep teaching instead of slinking off with his tail between his legs.

Secondly, it's a metaphor. It's symbolic of the sacrificial lamb (something the disciples would have been very familiar with). The sacrifice -- the letting of blood -- was old covenant type stuff. The self- sacrifice and the sharing that is characterized by eating together is new covenant type stuff. There is no "symbolism of cannibalism" in the Eucharist.

 

[sojourner]

Um actually there is, Jesus says himself in the Bible that "this is my flesh" and gives them bread, and says "this is my blood" and gives them wine, and says to do that every-time they eat as remembered of him.

I'm pretty sure that is using cannibalistic symbolism.

And what in-depth exegetical and theological work led you to this conclusion?

 

[1robin]

Um actually there is, Jesus says himself in the Bible that "this is my flesh" and gives them bread, and says "this is my blood" and gives them wine, and says to do that every-time they eat as remembered of him.

I'm pretty sure that is using cannibalistic symbolism.

Got Commentaries?

1. Because it is "the life" of Jesus, the "blood" being used by the sacred writers as representing "life itself," or as containing the elements of life, Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:14. It was forbidden, therefore, to eat blood, because it contained the life, or was the life, of the animal. When, therefore, Jesus says that his blood was shed for many, it is the same as saying that His life was given for many. See the notes at Romans 3:25.

Mathew Henry
26:26-30 This ordinance of the Lord's supper is to us the passover supper, by which we commemorate a much greater deliverance than that of Israel out of Egypt. Take, eat; accept of Christ as he is offered to you; receive the atonement, approve of it, submit to his grace and his government. Meat looked upon, be the dish ever so well garnished, will not nourish; it must be fed upon: so must the doctrine of Christ. This is my body; that is, spiritually, it signifies and represents his body. We partake of the sun, not by having the sun put into our hands, but the beams of it darted down upon us; so we partake of Christ by partaking of his grace, and the blessed fruits of the breaking of his body. The blood of Christ is signified and represented by the wine. He gave thanks, to teach us to look to God in every part of the ordinance. This cup he gave to the disciples with a command, Drink ye all of it. The pardon of sin is that great blessing which is, in the Lord's supper, conferred on all true believers; it is the foundation of all other blessings. He takes leave of such communion; and assures them of a happy meeting again at last; Until that day when I drink it new with you, may be understood of the joys and glories of the future state, which the saints shall partake with the Lord Jesus. That will be the kingdom of his Father; the wine of consolation will there be always new.
Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

I have never seen a commentary where the wine and bread are said to be literal blood and flesh. This symbolic interpretation is the only one that makes any sense at all and is consistent with the biblical narrative. When he said this he was still alive and so his blood and flesh sacrifice hadn't happened yet so it could not have been literal. This is a case of intent determining content. You want to find distasteful issues with the bible and so you make sure you do so even though they make no sense at all.

 

[Thief]

Well actually, you seem to be obsessed with fear. Ohhhhhhhhhh what will happen as you draw that final breath, who will be standing over you with a sword? Looks like fear is the factor controlling your life.

No fear on my part.

I'm expecting to have a sword of my own.

 

[Polymorphic Grass]

JESUS didn't have to but we should be thankfull HE did

 

[waitasec]

JESUS didn't have to but we should be thankfull HE did

why?

i don't know about you, trading my culpability for heaven seems sort of strange to me....

 

[F0uad]

Injustice salvation i don't want someone innocent to die for me nor would i want to die for someone's actions..



The idea contradicts the OT and the most important God's own law:

Old-testament..
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Law..
Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.


There are over 25 Verses that i know directly out of my head that contradicts the teaching that Jesus(p) took away your sin.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

In this theme I will try to bring it back:

Jebus didn't die for sins because there was no "sin" to begin with, and nothing wrong with humanity anyway. It's just one of many religions that seem to be at odds with reality and all sense of logic and decency.

What kind of god requires his son to be sacrificed so that "evil" people can be forgiven? THAT IS HUMAN SACRIFICE, and quite nasty at that. I don't get why Christianity actually preaches about a human sacrifice, and it is seen as socially acceptable. It's barbaric and violent, especially for a supposedly all-powerful god to not just require the blood of an animal to appease him, but the blood of a man, much more so his "only begotten son".

It's sick. Saying that a crucifixion of a man is an act of love is nothing more than insane. There is no honor or decency in the that kind of death, much less as an act of love, and even less that that kind of torture of a man supposedly innocent of crimes to begin with. Even in those days and that culture sacrificing people in the name of religion was seen as a horrific crime. And then consider the symbolism of "eating" his flesh and "drinking" his blood, that is even more sick and disgusting! It is the symbolism of cannibalism and the literal use of a human sacrifice that drives the "love" of the Christian god.

I REALLY want people to stand back and think about that, a human sacrifice, and the symbolism of being "washed in the blood of Christ" and the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood... think about it LONG AND HARD and then realize how much Christian missionaries and preachers have accused many a times of other religions and cultures of this, often falsely. Yes there were some headhunter tribes in India and Papa New Guinea, but for the most part the accusations are mostly unfounded.

What does this say about Christianity? The religion projects because they can't address the fact of how brutal and cannibalistic the basis of their faith is: the human sacrifice of an innocent man and the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. Which of note, they are supposed to do every-time they have communion, which to some is when they eat, or just every Sunday.

In some ways I do agree with you, but I would want to address something in the paragraph about the crucifixion being an act of love.

If Jesus had merely been a man and was literally giving all things up in this act, then it would be an act of love from him, himself. There is some confusion in this portion of the story to which many turn a blind eye; for certain portions Jesus must actually be divine, and for some, he must be only human. The circumstances and consequences seem to be swapped depending on what is more convenient to the story at that moment.

Be that as it may the voluntary giving of one's life for others need not be repeated to be a gesture of love for the other.

As to the cannibalism idea: I see that. I think it was rather awkwardly worded; that is my take. I think it could have been put more diplomatically so that it didn't sound like they are encouraged to think of it as his flesh; rather it should have been put forth as a reminder of flesh. A reminder of blood. Not 'this is my blood'. Too direct.

 

[Thief]

As I recall scripture...
The first occasion He spoke of blood, almost got Him killed.

He had been speaking in metaphor, '...eat of my flesh...drink my blood...'

The crowd around Him were taking it all too literally.
They took Him from the temple and to a lofty drop, and seemed more than willing to toss Him over the edge.
The copy I keep, reports He turned about, and walked back through the crowd.....
'and no man was able to lay hand on Him.'

This would be the gesture of a strong fellow.
To have angered a number of people to the point of murder and then escape their grasp....literally.

As for the metaphor...
If you partake of anything, it becomes one with you.
It becomes your nourishment and your strength.

The Carpenter saw from the beginning of His ministry, where such speech would take Him.

Even to the end He persisted...even to His Last Supper.

 

[sojourner]

Injustice salvation i don't want someone innocent to die for me nor would i want to die for someone's actions..



The idea contradicts the OT and the most important God's own law:

Old-testament..
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Law..
Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.


There are over 25 Verses that i know directly out of my head that contradicts the teaching that Jesus(p) took away your sin.

What, exactly, do you mean by "Jesus took away your sin?"

 

[roberto]

The Messiah died for the Pesha sin of the Northern tribes[house of israel] and redeemed them with his blood ie. he baught them back for the Kingdom.

The whoring bride [Sota] had to pay for her sin with death, but the Father himself provided the lamb in her place/stead.

In other words: The Messiah was not sent to die for the House of Yehudah.

The House of Yehudah will be "saved" by the Father to whom they have been praying at the wall :
Hos 1:7 But I will pity the house of Y'hudah; I will save them not by bow, sword, battle, horses or cavalry, but by ADONAI their God."

H6588
פּשׁע
pesha‛
peh'-shah
From H6586; a revolt (national, moral or religious): - rebellion, sin, transgression, trespassive

 

[1robin]

Injustice salvation i don't want someone innocent to die for me nor would i want to die for someone's actions..
The idea contradicts the OT and the most important God's own law:

Old-testament..
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Law..
Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.


There are over 25 Verses that i know directly out of my head that contradicts the teaching that Jesus(p) took away your sin.

There is very little that can be done to make you like the idea that someone else died for your sins. Look at it this way me (and the bible) and you (and the quran) both believe something. That God is good. Since the most common reason people don't believe in God is that they can't understand why there is so much evil if he is good and all powerful. Well you know as well as I do that there are many reasons that there is so much evil, but what we can never do is make those reasons overcome peoples emotional dislike with the fact there is so much evil. The same is true for substatutionary attonement. I can and will explain it a little but I can't make you like it.

First those 25 verses do not contradict Christ's sacrifice. Your looking through disbelief colored glasses. As with the other contradictions you gave in the other thread, I will clear a couple up for you if you wish.

Along with Gods loving nature he is a perfectly just. He only has to be consistent with his nature not ours. Most people concentrate on gentle Jesus meek and mild and ignore God's absolute just requirements. If he is to forgive sin there must be a price paid. If he just forgave us then our accountability and his absolute sovereign just nature are violated. Sin according to God is so awful that it can't just be forgotten. It requires payment. Once again me or you either one may like this but it is Gods word. His ways are not our ways. So a price must be paid. In the old testament it was the imperfect blood of animals that pushed sins forward until the perfect blood of Christ removed them completely.





Even if any man had wanted to, he could not offer himself in payment for his sins, for his sin had disqualified him from being an accceptable sacrifice. Consequently, the Old Testament provided for the offering of certain select animals whose blood was shed vicariously for the sins of those who repented and trusted God's revelation.
All of the spotless, innocent animals that became sacrifices in the Old Testament pointed to that great sacrifice, the one made by Jesus Christ on Calvary's cross. John the Baptist introduced Him, saying "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). The penalty God imposed on sin is both just and loving, for God Himself, in the Person of the Son, paid that penalty for all who will accept Him as their Substitute.
God the Son, clothed in human form, shed His blood for man's sin, thus satisfying every demand of holy justice. And through that precious blood, God showed Himself to be both "just and justifier of him which believeth in Jesus" (Romans 3:26).
The Bible portrays unsaved man as a slave to sin and speaks of freeing him in the same manner as slaves were redeemed in the ancient world. In Christ, "we have redemption through His Blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7). "You were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain manner of life … but with the precious blood of Christ, as a Lamb without blemish and without spot" (I Peter 1:18-19).
Apart from Jesus Christ, all people are alienated from God. Sin's rebellion forged a gulf between God and man that is humanly impassable. Yet, Christ's blood built the bridge from God to man.

"Now in Christ Jesus, you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."
-Ephesians 2:13"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
-Romans 5:8-9

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t015.html
​

 

[jasonwill2]

First of all, Jesus did choose. He could have shut up and walked off. He could have recanted. God's will wasn't that Jesus die, it was that he finish his work, which required that he keep teaching instead of slinking off with his tail between his legs.

Secondly, it's a metaphor. It's symbolic of the sacrificial lamb (something the disciples would have been very familiar with). The sacrifice -- the letting of blood -- was old covenant type stuff. The self- sacrifice and the sharing that is characterized by eating together is new covenant type stuff. There is no "symbolism of cannibalism" in the Eucharist.

Jesus did ask at one point that if there was any other way, if that could be done instead. He obviously was not looking forward to dying, but did it anyway because it was what he came for and was the will of god. At least according to Christianity. Let me put it this way: yes, he probably wanted to save mankind's souls, but he also probably didn't want to die but died anyway because it was the way his Father wanted him too.

Also I do realize that it is a metaphor, at least to most Christians. There are some who believe it becomes the flesh and blood in some quasi-literal way, but that wasn't my problem. My problem with it is BECAUSE it is a metaphor I find it disgusting, I clearly said that it is using the symbolism of cannibalism, which I find quite disturbing.

And what in-depth exegetical and theological work led you to this conclusion?

I read it in the Bible:

Luke 22:19-20


"19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

Obviously they were eating and drinking the bread and wine. The symbolism was clear, he was giving him his body and blood as he would with his human sacrifice. It's quite cannibalistic, even if not literally.

Some people DO believe in Transubstantiation by the way.

Got Commentaries?

1. Because it is "the life" of Jesus, the "blood" being used by the sacred writers as representing "life itself," or as containing the elements of life, Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:14. It was forbidden, therefore, to eat blood, because it contained the life, or was the life, of the animal. When, therefore, Jesus says that his blood was shed for many, it is the same as saying that His life was given for many. See the notes at Romans 3:25.

Mathew Henry
26:26-30 This ordinance of the Lord's supper is to us the passover supper, by which we commemorate a much greater deliverance than that of Israel out of Egypt. Take, eat; accept of Christ as he is offered to you; receive the atonement, approve of it, submit to his grace and his government. Meat looked upon, be the dish ever so well garnished, will not nourish; it must be fed upon: so must the doctrine of Christ. This is my body; that is, spiritually, it signifies and represents his body. We partake of the sun, not by having the sun put into our hands, but the beams of it darted down upon us; so we partake of Christ by partaking of his grace, and the blessed fruits of the breaking of his body. The blood of Christ is signified and represented by the wine. He gave thanks, to teach us to look to God in every part of the ordinance. This cup he gave to the disciples with a command, Drink ye all of it. The pardon of sin is that great blessing which is, in the Lord's supper, conferred on all true believers; it is the foundation of all other blessings. He takes leave of such communion; and assures them of a happy meeting again at last; Until that day when I drink it new with you, may be understood of the joys and glories of the future state, which the saints shall partake with the Lord Jesus. That will be the kingdom of his Father; the wine of consolation will there be always new.
Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

I have never seen a commentary where the wine and bread are said to be literal blood and flesh. This symbolic interpretation is the only one that makes any sense at all and is consistent with the biblical narrative. When he said this he was still alive and so his blood and flesh sacrifice hadn't happened yet so it could not have been literal. This is a case of intent determining content. You want to find distasteful issues with the bible and so you make sure you do so even though they make no sense at all.

Never heard of Transubstantiation? Also I never said it was literal, I said that I found the symbolism disgusting, as it was cannibalistic in nature.

In some ways I do agree with you, but I would want to address something in the paragraph about the crucifixion being an act of love.

If Jesus had merely been a man and was literally giving all things up in this act, then it would be an act of love from him, himself. There is some confusion in this portion of the story to which many turn a blind eye; for certain portions Jesus must actually be divine, and for some, he must be only human. The circumstances and consequences seem to be swapped depending on what is more convenient to the story at that moment.

Be that as it may the voluntary giving of one's life for others need not be repeated to be a gesture of love for the other.

As to the cannibalism idea: I see that. I think it was rather awkwardly worded; that is my take. I think it could have been put more diplomatically so that it didn't sound like they are encouraged to think of it as his flesh; rather it should have been put forth as a reminder of flesh. A reminder of blood. Not 'this is my blood'. Too direct.

Ok maybe I over-stated it, but the wine which one drinks is symbolically the blood, you can see how that can be interpreted, especially by other cultures and groups. If I recall the Romans thought it was pretty disgusting at the time when Christianity was rising.

 

[sojourner]

it was what he came for and was the will of god.

That's one way of looking at it, but not the only way -- and certainly not the best, IMO.

At least according to Christianity.

Some sectors of Xy, anyway -- not all sectors.

died anyway because it was the way his Father wanted him too.

I don't think so.

I clearly said that it is using the symbolism of cannibalism,

I think you're clearly missing the point somewhere in the metaphor and making a leap both the writer and the intended audience never would have made.

I read it in the Bible

Great bit of exegetical work there, I must say!
If (and that's a huge "if") the writer meant it as a symbol of cannibalism, in what way does that make sense, given the culture, and given the context of the rest of what Jesus said about loving one's neighbor and choosing life?!
Do a little work, man! Don't just leap to the first conclusion that strikes you.

you can see how that can be interpreted, especially by other cultures and groups.

That's why exegesis is such a valuable tool. It keeps the interpretation valid.

I think you're stretching for excuses to disbelieve, not looking for reasons to believe.

 

[jasonwill2]

That's one way of looking at it, but not the only way -- and certainly not the best, IMO.

Some sectors of Xy, anyway -- not all sectors.

I don't think so.

I think you're clearly missing the point somewhere in the metaphor and making a leap both the writer and the intended audience never would have made.

Great bit of exegetical work there, I must say!
If (and that's a huge "if") the writer meant it as a symbol of cannibalism, in what way does that make sense, given the culture, and given the context of the rest of what Jesus said about loving one's neighbor and choosing life?!
Do a little work, man! Don't just leap to the first conclusion that strikes you.

That's why exegesis is such a valuable tool. It keeps the interpretation valid.

I think you're stretching for excuses to disbelieve, not looking for reasons to believe.

I'm not saying it was intended to represent real cannibalism, but that it is inherently cannibalistic regardless. What I meant about other cultures is that they would take it quite literally as they often did throughout history of cultures reached by Christianity.

Also the washing in Christ's blood saying and the literal human sacrifice is still disgusting and morally deplorable.


The very idea of basing a "religion of love" on a human sacrifice is really freaky actually. What kind of god makes it so that his own son must die a horrible death for us wortheless humans? Especially when he could do it literally an infinite amount of other ways, being all-powerful. Obviously either the god described is sadistic or not all powerful/the creator, but probably both.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not saying it was intended to represent real cannibalism, but that it is inherently cannibalistic regardless.

That doesn't address my point, which was:

I think you're clearly missing the point somewhere in the metaphor and making a leap both the writer and the intended audience never would have made.

What I meant about other cultures is that they would take it quite literally as they often did throughout history of cultures reached by Christianity.

That's why exegesis is so important. What's your excuse for not engaging some?

Also the washing in Christ's blood saying and the literal human sacrifice is still disgusting and morally deplorable.

It is. but to the ancient mind set, it would have made perfect sense.
Again: Exegesis.

The very idea of basing a "religion of love" on a human sacrifice is really freaky actually.

How is it "based on a human sacrifice?" Even if it was based on the crucifixion (which is an untenable claim at best), in what way is the crucifixion a "human sacrifice?" A human sacrifice is a religious ceremony, designed to incur the succor of deity. The crucifixion was a state execution and act of terrorism, designed to quell a mob.

What kind of god makes it so that his own son must die a horrible death for us wortheless humans?

God didn't make it that way. The Romans and Sanhedrin made it that way.

Obviously either the god described is sadistic or not all powerful/the creator, but probably both.

Obviously, you haven't done your homework.

 

[Thief]

I'm not saying it was intended to represent real cannibalism, but that it is inherently cannibalistic regardless. What I meant about other cultures is that they would take it quite literally as they often did throughout history of cultures reached by Christianity.

Also the washing in Christ's blood saying and the literal human sacrifice is still disgusting and morally deplorable.


The very idea of basing a "religion of love" on a human sacrifice is really freaky actually. What kind of god makes it so that his own son must die a horrible death for us wortheless humans? Especially when he could do it literally an infinite amount of other ways, being all-powerful. Obviously either the god described is sadistic or not all powerful/the creator, but probably both.

As with the people the Carpenter spoke to....you're leaning to much to the literal and not enough to the meaning.

If I say to you...'we are of the same blood'...
you understand that as brotherhood (that would be the intent)

Describing an action as a blood event could be a bit more complicated
but not so much as to lose the meaning.

If we partake of the same cup, and that cup is filled with blood....
it is a stomach turning idea.....literally.
But the literal is not the point.

Consider that blood is that item that lets you live....
If we share the same blood we are brothers....
If we partake of the same cup...we share the same fate.

The disciples came asking position in the kingdom.
They were told first....they did not understand what they ask.

The question then...'Will you partake the cup I shall drink from?'...
'Yeah'.

'Then you shall partake, but as for who will sit at my right...who will sit at my left...that much is not Mine to give.'

Perhaps you can see why the topic of blood can be confusing?
You do seem confused.

 

[sojourner]

As with the people the Carpenter spoke to....you're leaning to much to the literal and not enough to the meaning.

If I say to you...'we are of the same blood'...
you understand that as brotherhood (that would be the intent)

Describing an action as a blood event could be a bit more complicated
but not so much as to lose the meaning.

If we partake of the same cup, and that cup is filled with blood....
it is a stomach turning idea.....literally.
But the literal is not the point.

Consider that blood is that item that lets you live....
If we share the same blood we are brothers....
If we partake of the same cup...we share the same fate.

The disciples came asking position in the kingdom.
They were told first....they did not understand what they ask.

The question then...'Will you partake the cup I shall drink from?'...
'Yeah'.

'Then you shall partake, but as for who will sit at my right...who will sit at my left...that much is not Mine to give.'

Perhaps you can see why the topic of blood can be confusing?
You do seem confused.

More to the point:
For Mark, drinking blood is an act of extreme uncleanliness. For Mark, God became unclean for us, through the taking on of human flesh, for dying an impure death. This image -- for Mark, especially -- is highly symbolic.